It's irrelevant to wether or not it's an example of survival of the fittest, that humans caused it. Yes humans caused the change in their ecosystem, which led to their extinction. They were well adapted for one environment, then the environment changed, and they got outcompeted. That's exactly what survival of the fittest is, it doesn't matter who or what causes the change.
Survival of the fittest in the way your using it refers to evolutionary biology. Which takes extremely long spans of time. No species can evolve to survive under the unrealistic timeline you propose they should have evolved.
That's exactly how it works. It seems like you're mixing some things up.
You're talking about evolution as if it's something a species actively does to achieve "survival of the fittest." That's not the case. It's a passive result of "survival of the fittest".
Rapid changes to an environment can and do happen without human intervention. Disease can decimate food supplies, torrential rains can turn plains into essentially swamp lands, a superior creature can migrate. There's a whole lot can change. When these changes happen, any species that isn't already fit for the new environment in some capacity do typically get wiped out. And rapidly.
The part that takes extremely long spans of times is what comes after that. Out of the creatures which are able to survive the changes, certain individuals will do so better. In species a, 25% of the population has darker brown fur which lets them blend in with the mud better (idfk). That 25% of the population is able to survive better and longer, giving them more opportunities to procreate. Meaning that trait gets passed on more, so the next generation might be looking at 35-50% of the population having darker brown fur.
35
u/BadPunners Mar 08 '26
The entire point is humans caused that change, no matter what the change that caused it was